To my knowledge, in two years since coming public the company has never mentioned that a required application for testing to even begin had not been submitted. What do you call that if you do not like my choice of words? I think that is clearly significant and material information that investors had a right to know and should have been told.

The company projected head-to-head testing would be completed in Q3 2010 (which did not happen) and then Q3 2011 (which also did not happen) and failed to mention a necessary application had not even been filed. Is it better to call that incompetence? There is no way, in my opinion of course, that such an omission is justifiable for a public company. Whether it is misinformation, misrepresentation, failure to inform, or incompetence...it does not foster confidence in the marketplace and raises questions about what other information may not have been divulged yet.

I don't think under securities law that a public company has the right to pick and choose what they divulge if it could be considered material to the company's operations or its stock price. As I have already mentioned, I also feel there is significant and material information about Merck's failure to bring the beads to market that has not been provided to shareholders. That was a significant part of the company's claims when it first came public and a big part of the pumping of the stock at the time of the reverse merger. Why do you feel now that almost nothing has been said about those problems and the failure of Merck to meet the CGNH's own stated goals and time frames?